SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 186439. January 15, 2014.]

UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION and

RENE CABATI, petitioners, vs. FERDINAND ACIBO,
ROBERTO AGUILAR, EDDIE BALDOZA, RENE ABELLAR,
DIOMEDES ALICOS, MIGUEL ALICOS, ROGELIO AMAHIT,
LARRY AMASCO, FELIPE BALANSAG, ROMEO
BALANSAG, MANUEL BANGOT, ANDY BANJAO, DIONISIO
BENDIJO, JR., JOVENTINO BROCE, ENRICO LITERAL,
RODGER RAMIREZ, BIENVENIDO RODRIGUEZ, DIOCITO
PALAGTIW, ERNIE SABLAN, RICHARD PANCHO,
RODRIGO ESTRABELA, DANNY KADUSALE and
ALLYROBYL OLPUS, respondents.

DECISION

BRION, J : p

We resolve in this petition for review on certiorari 1(1) the challenge to the
November 29, 2007 decision 2(2) and the January 22, 2009 resolution 3(3) of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02028. This CA decision affirmed
with modification the July 22, 2005 decision 4(4) and the April 28, 2006
resolution 5(5) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC
Case No. V-00006-03 which, in turn, reversed the October 9, 2002 decision 6(6) of
the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA's decision dismissed the complaint filed by
complainants Ferdinand Acibo, et al. 7(7) against petitioners Universal Robina
Sugar Milling Corporation (URSUMCO) and Rene Cabati.

The Factual Antecedents

URSUMCO is a domestic corporation engaged in the sugar cane milling

business; Cabati is URSUMCO's Business Unit General Manager.

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 1
 The complainants were employees of URSUMCO. They were hired on
various dates (between February 1988 and April 1996) and on different capacities,
8(8) i.e., drivers, crane operators, bucket hookers, welders, mechanics, laboratory
attendants and aides, steel workers, laborers, carpenters and masons, among others.
At the start of their respective engagements, the complainants signed contracts of
employment for a period of one (1) month or for a given season. URSUMCO
repeatedly hired the complainants to perform the same duties and, for every
engagement, required the latter to sign new employment contracts for the same
duration of one month or a given season.

On August 23, 2002, 9(9) the complainants filed before the LA complaints
for regularization, entitlement to the benefits under the existing Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and attorney's fees. DSAICa

In the decision 10(10) dated October 9, 2002, the LA dismissed the

complaint for lack of merit. The LA held that the complainants were seasonal or
project workers and not regular employees of URSUMCO. The LA pointed out
that the complainants were required to perform, for a definite period, phases of
URSUMCO's several projects that were not at all directly related to the latter's
main operations. As the complainants were project employees, they could not be
regularized since their respective employments were coterminous with the phase of
the work or special project to which they were assigned and which employments
end upon the completion of each project. Accordingly, the complainants were not
entitled to the benefits granted under the CBA that, as provided, covered only the
regular employees of URSUMCO.

Of the twenty-two original complainants before the LA, seven appealed the
LA's ruling before the NLRC, namely: respondents Ferdinand Acibo, Eddie
Baldoza, Andy Banjao, Dionisio Bendijo, Jr., Rodger Ramirez, Diocito Palagtiw,
Danny Kadusale and Allyrobyl Olpus.

The Ruling of the NLRC

In its decisions 11(11) of July 22, 2005, the NLRC reversed the LA's ruling;
it declared the complainants as regular URSUMCO employees and granted their
monetary claims under the CBA. The NLRC pointed out that the complainants
performed activities which were usually necessary and desirable in the usual trade
or business of URSUMCO, and had been repeatedly hired for the same
undertaking every season. Thus, pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code, the
NLRC declared that the complainants were regular employees. As regular
employees, the NLRC held that the complainants were entitled to the benefits
granted, under the CBA, to the regular URSUMCO employees.

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 2
 The petitioners moved to reconsider this NLRC ruling which the NLRC
denied in its April 28, 2006 resolution. 12(12) The petitioners elevated the case to
the CA via a petition for certiorari. 13(13)

The Ruling of the CA

In its November 29, 2007 decision, 14(14) the CA granted in part the
petition; it affirmed the NLRC's ruling finding the complainants to be regular
employees of URSUMCO, but deleted the grant of monetary benefits under the
CBA.

The CA pointed out that the primary standard for determining regular
employment is the reasonable connection between a particular activity performed
by the employee vis--vis the usual trade or business of the employer. This
connection, in turn, can be determined by considering the nature of the work
performed and the relation of this work to the business or trade of the employer in
its entirety. ATaDHC

In this regard, the CA held that the various activities that the complainants
were tasked to do were necessary, if not indispensable, to the nature of
URSUMCO's business. As the complainants had been performing their respective
tasks for at least one year, the CA held that this repeated and continuing need for
the complainants' performance of these same tasks, regardless of whether the
performance was continuous or intermittent, constitutes sufficient evidence of the
necessity, if not indispensability, of the activity to URSUMCO's business.

Further, the CA noted that the petitioners failed to prove that they gave the
complainants opportunity to work elsewhere during the off-season, which
opportunity could have qualified the latter as seasonal workers. Still, the CA
pointed out that even during this off-season period, seasonal workers are not
separated from the service but are simply considered on leave until they are
re-employed. Thus, the CA concluded that the complainants were regular
employees with respect to the activity that they had been performing and while the
activity continued.

On the claim for CBA benefits, the CA, however, ruled that the
complainants were not entitled to receive them. The CA pointed out that while the
complainants were considered regular, albeit seasonal, workers, the CBA-covered
regular employees of URSUMCO were performing tasks needed by the latter for
the entire year with no regard to the changing sugar milling season. Hence, the
complainants did not belong to and could not be grouped together with the regular
employees of URSUMCO, for collective bargaining purposes; they constitute a
bargaining unit separate and distinct from the regular employees. Consequently,

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 3
 the CA declared that the complainants could not be covered by the CBA.

The petitioners filed the present petition after the CA denied their motion
for partial reconsideration 15(15) in the CA's January 22, 2009 resolution. 16(16)

The Issues

The petition essentially presents the following issues for the Court's
resolution: (1) whether the respondents are regular employees of URSUMCO; and
(2) whether affirmative relief can be given to the fifteen (15) of the complainants
who did not appeal the LA's decision. 17(17) aSTAIH

The Court's Ruling

We resolve to partially GRANT the petition.

On the issue of the status of

the respondents' employment

The petitioners maintain that the respondents are contractual or

project/seasonal workers and not regular employees of URSUMCO. They thus
argue that the CA erred in applying the legal parameters and guidelines for regular
employment to the respondents' case. They contend that the legal standards
length of the employee's engagement and the desirability or necessity of the
employee's work in the usual trade or business of the employer apply only to
regular employees under paragraph 1, Article 280 of the Labor Code, and, under
paragraph 2 of the same article, to casual employees who are deemed regular by
their length of service.

The respondents, the petitioners point out, were specifically engaged for a
fixed and predetermined duration of, on the average, one (1) month at a time that
coincides with a particular phase of the company's business operations or sugar
milling season. By the nature of their engagement, the respondents' employment
legally ends upon the end of the predetermined period; thus, URSUMCO was
under no legal obligation to rehire the respondents.

In their comment, 18(18) the respondents maintain that they are regular
employees of URSUMCO. Relying on the NLRC and the CA rulings, they point
out that they have been continuously working for URSUMCO for more than one
year, performing tasks which were necessary and desirable to URSUMCO's
business. Hence, under the above-stated legal parameters, they are regular
employees.

We disagree with the petitioners' position. We find the respondents to be

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 4
 regular seasonal employees of URSUMCO.

As the CA has explained in its challenged decision, Article 280 of the Labor
Code provides for three kinds of employment arrangements, namely: regular,
project/seasonal and casual. Regular employment refers to that arrangement
whereby the employee "has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer[.]" 19(19)
Under the definition, the primary standard that determines regular employment is
the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee and the usual business or trade of the employer; 20(20) the emphasis is
on the necessity or desirability of the employee's activity. Thus, when the
employee performs activities considered necessary and desirable to the overall
business scheme of the employer, the law regards the employee as regular.

By way of an exception, paragraph 2, Article 280 of the Labor Code also

considers regular a casual employment arrangement when the casual employee's
engagement has lasted for at least one year, regardless of the engagement's
continuity. The controlling test in this arrangement is the length of time during
which the employee is engaged.

A project employment, on the other hand, contemplates on arrangement

whereby "the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking
whose completion or termination has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee[.]" 21(21) Two requirements, therefore, clearly need
to be satisfied to remove the engagement from the presumption of regularity of
employment, namely: (1) designation of a specific project or undertaking for
which the employee is hired; and (2) clear determination of the completion or
termination of the project at the time of the employee's engagement. 22(22) The
services of the project employees are legally and automatically terminated upon
the end or completion of the project as the employee's services are coterminous
with the project. AEITDH

Unlike in a regular employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code,

however, the length of time of the asserted "project" employee's engagement is not
controlling as the employment may, in fact, last for more than a year, depending
on the needs or circumstances of the project. Nevertheless, this length of time (or
the continuous rehiring of the employee even after the cessation of the project)
may serve as a badge of regular employment when the activities performed by the
purported "project" employee are necessary and indispensable to the usual
business or trade of the employer. 23(23) In this latter case, the law will regard the
arrangement as regular employment. 24(24)

Seasonal employment operates much in the same way as project

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 5
 employment, albeit it involves work or service that is seasonal in nature or lasting
for the duration of the season. 25(25) As with project employment, although the
seasonal employment arrangement involves work that is seasonal or periodic in
nature, the employment itself is not automatically considered seasonal so as to
prevent the employee from attaining regular status. To exclude the asserted
"seasonal" employee from those classified as regular employees, the employer
must show that: (1) the employee must be performing work or services that are
seasonal in nature; and (2) he had been employed for the duration of the season.
26(26) Hence, when the "seasonal" workers are continuously and repeatedly hired
to perform the same tasks or activities for several seasons or even after the
cessation of the season, this length of time may likewise serve as badge of regular
employment. 27(27) In fact, even though denominated as "seasonal workers," if
these workers are called to work from time to time and are only temporarily laid
off during the off-season, the law does not consider them separated from the
service during the off-season period. The law simply considers these seasonal
workers on leave until re-employed. 28(28)

Casual employment, the third kind of employment arrangement, refers to

any other employment arrangement that does not fall under any of the first two
categories, i.e., regular or project/seasonal.

Interestingly, the Labor Code does not mention another employment

arrangement contractual or fixed term employment (or employment for a term)
which, if not for the fixed term, should fall under the category of regular
employment in view of the nature of the employee's engagement, which is to
perform an activity usually necessary or desirable in the employer's business.

In Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, 29(29) the Court, for the first time,
recognized and resolved the anomaly created by a narrow and literal interpretation
of Article 280 of the Labor Code that appears to restrict the employee's right to
freely stipulate with his employer on the duration of his engagement. In this case,
the Court upheld the validity of the fixed-term employment agreed upon by the
employer, Brent School, Inc., and the employee, Dorotio Alegre, declaring that the
restrictive clause in Article 280 "should be construed to refer to the substantive
evil that the Code itself . . . singled out: agreements entered into precisely to
circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application to instances where
[the] fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by
the parties . . . absent any . . . circumstances vitiating [the employee's] consent, or
where [the facts satisfactorily show] that the employer and [the] employee dealt
with each other on more or less equal terms[.]" 30(30) The indispensability or
desirability of the activity performed by the employee will not preclude the parties
from entering into an otherwise valid fixed term employment agreement; a definite
period of employment does not essentially contradict the nature of the employees
Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 6
 duties 31(31) as necessary and desirable to the usual business or trade of the
employer.

Nevertheless, "where the circumstances evidently show that the employer

imposed the period precisely to preclude the employee from acquiring tenurial
security, the law and this Court will not hesitate to strike down or disregard the
period as contrary to public policy, morals, etc." 32(32) In such a case, the general
restrictive rule under Article 280 of the Labor Code will apply and the employee
shall be deemed regular. HCaDIS

Clearly, therefore, the nature of the employment does not depend solely on
the will or word of the employer or on the procedure for hiring and the manner of
designating the employee. Rather, the nature of the employment depends on the
nature of the activities to be performed by the employee, considering the nature of
the employer's business, the duration and scope to be done, 33(33) and, in some
cases, even the length of time of the performance and its continued existence.

In light of the above legal parameters laid down by the law and applicable
jurisprudence, the respondents are neither project, seasonal nor fixed-term
employees, but regular seasonal workers of URSUMCO. The following factual
considerations from the records support this conclusion:

First, the respondents were made to perform various tasks that did not at all
pertain to any specific phase of URSUMCO's strict milling operations that would
ultimately cease upon completion of a particular phase in the milling of sugar;
rather, they were tasked to perform duties regularly and habitually needed in
URSUMCO's operations during the milling season. The respondents' duties as
loader operators, hookers, crane operators and drivers were necessary to haul and
transport the sugarcane from the plantation to the mill; laboratory attendants,
workers and laborers to mill the sugar; and welders, carpenters and utility workers
to ensure the smooth and continuous operation of the mill for the duration of the
milling season, as distinguished from the production of the sugarcane which
involves the planting and raising of the sugarcane until it ripens for milling. The
production of sugarcane, it must be emphasized, requires a different set of workers
who are experienced in farm or agricultural work. Needless to say, they perform
the activities that are necessary and desirable in sugarcane production. As in the
milling of sugarcane, the plantation workers perform their duties only during the
planting season.

Second, the respondents were regularly and repeatedly hired to perform the
same tasks year after year. This regular and repeated hiring of the same workers
(two different sets) for two separate seasons has put in place, principally through
jurisprudence, the system of regular seasonal employment in the sugar industry

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 7
 and other industries with a similar nature of operations.

Under the system, the plantation workers or the mill employees do not work
continuously for one whole year but only for the duration of the growing of the
sugarcane or the milling season. Their seasonal work, however, does not detract
from considering them in regular employment since in a litany of cases, this Court
has already settled that seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time
and are temporarily laid off during the off-season are not separated from the
service in said period, but are merely considered on leave until re-employment.
34(34) Be this as it may, regular seasonal employees, like the respondents in
this case, should not be confused with the regular employees of the sugar mill
such as the administrative or office personnel who perform their tasks for the
entire year regardless of the season. The NLRC, therefore, gravely erred when
it declared the respondents regular employees of URSUMCO without
qualification and that they were entitled to the benefits granted, under the CBA, to
URSUMCO'S regular employees.

Third, while the petitioners assert that the respondents were free to work
elsewhere during the off-season, the records do not support this assertion. There is
no evidence on record showing that after the completion of their tasks at
URSUMCO, the respondents sought and obtained employment elsewhere.

Contrary to the petitioners' position, Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC, 3rd Div. 35(35)
is not applicable to the respondents as this case was resolved based on different
factual considerations. In Mercado, the workers were hired to perform phases of
the agricultural work in their employer's farm for a definite period of time;
afterwards, they were free to offer their services to any other farm owner. The
workers were not hired regularly and repeatedly for the same phase(s) of
agricultural work, but only intermittently for any single phase. And, more
importantly, the employer in Mercado sufficiently proved these factual
circumstances. The Court reiterated these same observations in Hda. Fatima v.
Nat'l. Fed. of Sugarcane Workers-Food and Gen. Trade 36(36) and Hacienda
Bino/Hortencia Starke, Inc. v. Cuenca. 37(37)

At this point, we reiterate the settled rule that in this jurisdiction, only
questions of law are allowed in a petition for review on certiorari. 38(38) This
Court's power of review in a Rule 45 petition is limited to resolving matters
pertaining to any perceived legal errors, which the CA may have committed in
issuing the assailed decision. 39(39) In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA's
Rule 65 decision in a labor case, we examine the CA decision in the context that it
determined, i.e., the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC
decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits
of the case was correct. 40(40) In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the
Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 8
 CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision
challenged before it. 41(41)

Viewed in this light, we find the need to place the CA's affirmation, albeit
with modification, of the NLRC decision of July 22, 2005 in perspective. To
recall, the NLRC declared the respondents as regular employees of URSUMCO.
42(42) With such a declaration, the NLRC in effect granted the respondents'
prayer for regularization and, concomitantly, their prayer for the grant of monetary
benefits under the CBA for URSUMCO's regular employees. In its challenged
ruling, the CA concurred with the NLRC finding, but with the respondents
characterized as regular seasonal employees of URSUMCO.

The CA misappreciated the real import of the NLRC ruling. The labor
agency did not declare the respondents as regular seasonal employees, but as
regular employees. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the NLRC
decision's dispositive portion, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby

GRANTED. Complainants are declared regular employees of respondent. As
such, they are entitled to the monetary benefits granted to regular employees
of respondent company based on the CBA, reckoned three (3) years back
from the filing of the above-entitled case on 23 August 2002 up to the
present or to their entire service with respondent after the date of filing of the
said complaint if they are no longer connected with respondent company.
43(43) EHcaAI

It is, therefore, clear that the issue brought to the CA for resolution is
whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in declaring the respondents
regular employees of URSUMCO and, as such, entitled to the benefits under
the CBA for the regular employees.

Based on the established facts, we find that the CA grossly misread the
NLRC ruling and missed the implications of the respondents' regularization. To
reiterate, the respondents are regular seasonal employees, as the CA itself opined
when it declared that "private respondents who are regular workers with respect to
their seasonal tasks or activities and while such activities exist, cannot
automatically be governed by the CBA between petitioner URSUMCO and the
authorized bargaining representative of the regular and permanent employees."
44(44) Citing jurisprudential standards, 45(45) it then proceeded to explain that the
respondents cannot be lumped with the regular employees due to the differences in
the nature of their duties and the duration of their work vis-a-vis the operations of
the company.

The NLRC was well aware of these distinctions as it acknowledged that the
Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 9
 respondents worked only during the milling season, yet it ignored the distinctions
and declared them regular employees, a marked departure from existing
jurisprudence. This, to us, is grave abuse of discretion, as it gave no reason for
disturbing the system of regular seasonal employment already in place in the
sugar industry and other industries with similar seasonal operations. For
upholding the NLRC's flawed decision on the respondents' employment status,
the CA committed a reversible error of judgment.

In sum, we find the complaint to be devoid of merit. The issue of granting

affirmative relief to the complainants who did not appeal the CA ruling has
become academic.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTIALLY

GRANTED. Except for the denial of the respondents' claim for CBA benefits, the
November 29, 2007 decision and the January 22, 2009 resolution of the Court of
Appeals are SET ASIDE. The complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. EICSTa

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Dated March 18, 2009 and filed on April 3, 2009 under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court; rollo, pp. 11-39.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, and concurred in by Associate
Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Amy Lazaro-Javier; id. at 47-56.
3. Id. at 58-59; penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, and concurred in by
Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier.
4. Penned by Commissioner Aurelio D. Menzon; id. at 154-157.
5. Id. at 175-177.
6. Penned by Labor Arbiter Geoffrey P. Villahermosa; id. at 140-145.
7. The other named respondents are as follows: Roberto Aguilar, Eddie Baldoza,
Rene Abellar, Diomedes Alicos, Miguel Alicos, Rogelio Amahit, Larry Amasco,
Felipe Balansag, Romeo Balansag, Manuel Bangot, Andy Banjao, Dionisio
Bendijo, Jr., Joventino Broce, Enrico Literal, Rodger Ramirez, Bienvenido
Rodriguez, Diocito Palagtiw, Ernie Sablan, Richard Pancho, Rodrigo Estrabela,
Danny Kadusale and Allyrobyl Olpus.
Only those whose names are in bold letters appealed the LA's October 9,
2002 decision before the NLRC; id. at 152.
8. Id. at 135. The following are the respective hiring dates and duties of the named
respondents:
Name Duties Hiring Date
Allyrobyl P Olpus Hooker February 24, 1988
Felipe B. Balansag Driver March 8, 1988

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 10
 Richard E. Pancho Loader Operator March 24, 1989
Joventino C. Broce Gantry Hooker April 3, 1989
Romeo B. Balansag Driver May 1, 1989
Ferdinand G. Acibo Utility February 19, 1990
Danny S. Kadusale Crane Operator September 11, 1991
Dionisio Bendijo, Jr. Welder September 16, 1991
Eddie Z. Baldoza Welder October 16, 1991
Andy C. Banjao Welder October 16, 1991
Diocito H. Palagtiw Welder October 21, 1991
Diomedes F. Alicos Prod. Raw Maintenance February 28, 1992
Rodrigo A. Estrabela Utility June 4, 1992
Miguel F. Alicos Utility January 28, 1993
Bienvenido M. Rodriguez Lime Attendant August 25, 1993
Manuel T. Bangot Driver February 1, 1994
Rodger L. Ramirez Utility August 1, 1994
Rogelio M. Amahit Prod. Raw Maintenance August 15, 1994
Ernie D. Sabla-on Welder February 8, 1996
Rene V. Abellar Lime Tender February 10, 1996
Larry C. Amosco Evaporator Helper March 26, 1996
Enrico A. Literal Prod. Raw Maintenance March 26, 1996
Roberto S. Aguilar Lime Attendant April 8, 1996
9. Id. at 88-129.
10. Supra note 6.
11. Supra note 4.
12. Supra note 5.
13. Rollo, pp. 178-197.
14. Supra note 2.
15. Rollo, pp. 60-79.
16. Supra note 3.
17. The matter of the respondents' non-entitlement to the CBA benefits, as declared by
the CA, was not raised before this Court in the present proceeding either by the
petitioners or the respondents.
18. Rollo, pp. 246-249.
19. Article 280 of the Labor Code reads in full:
Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of
the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has
been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been
fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the
work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the
preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one
year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a
Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 11
 regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his
employment shall continue while such activity exists.
20. De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 257 Phil. 626, 632 (1989). See
also Hda. Fatima v. Nat'l. Fed. of Sugarcane Workers-Food and Gen. Trade, 444
Phil. 587, 596 (2003); Abasolo v. National Labor Relations Commission, 400 Phil.
86, 103 (2000); and Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Starke, Inc. v. Cuenca, 496 Phil.
198, 209 (2005).
21. LABOR CODE, Article 280.
22. See Violeta v. NLRC, 345 Phil. 762, 771 (1997).
23. See Tomas Lao Construction v. NLRC, 344 Phil. 268, 279 (1997).
24. See Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, 348 Phil. 580, 600-601 (1998).
25. Ibid.
26. See Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Starke, Inc. v. Cuenca, supra note 20, at 209; and
Hda. Fatima v. Nat'l. Fed. of Sugarcane Workers-Food and Gen. Trade, supra
note 20, at 596.
27. See Abasolo v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 20, at 103-104.
28. Id.
29. 260 Phil. 747 (1990).
30. Id. at 763.
31. See St. Theresa's School of Novaliches Foundation v. NLRC, 351 Phil. 1038, 1043
(1998); Pure Foods Corp. v. NLRC, 347 Phil. 434, 443 (1997); and Philips
Semiconductors (Phils.), Inc. v. Fadriquela, G.R. No. 141717, April 14, 2004,
427 SCRA 408, 421-422.
32. Cielo v. NLRC, 271 Phil. 433, 442 (1991).
33. Abasolo, et al. v. NLRC, 400 Phil. 86, 103 (2000).
34. Id. at 104.
35. 278 Phil. 345 (1991).
36. Supra note 20.
37. Supra note 20.
38. Id.
39. Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation, G.R. No. 183329, August 27, 2009,
597 SCRA 334, 342.
40. Id. at 342-343.
41. Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna, G.R. No. 172086, December
3, 2012, 686 SCRA 676, 683-684.
42. Rollo, p. 157.
43. Ibid.
44. Id. at 55.
45. Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 102130, July 26, 1994, 234
SCRA 517.

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 12
 Endnotes

1 (Popup - Popup)
1. Dated March 18, 2009 and filed on April 3, 2009 under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court; rollo, pp. 11-39.

2 (Popup - Popup)
2. Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, and concurred in by Associate
Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Amy Lazaro-Javier; id. at 47-56.

3 (Popup - Popup)
3. Id. at 58-59; penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, and concurred in by
Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier.

4 (Popup - Popup)
4. Penned by Commissioner Aurelio D. Menzon; id. at 154-157.

5 (Popup - Popup)
5. Id. at 175-177.

6 (Popup - Popup)
6. Penned by Labor Arbiter Geoffrey P. Villahermosa; id. at 140-145.

7 (Popup - Popup)
7. The other named respondents are as follows: Roberto Aguilar, Eddie Baldoza,
Rene Abellar, Diomedes Alicos, Miguel Alicos, Rogelio Amahit, Larry Amasco,
Felipe Balansag, Romeo Balansag, Manuel Bangot, Andy Banjao, Dionisio
Bendijo, Jr., Joventino Broce, Enrico Literal, Rodger Ramirez, Bienvenido
Rodriguez, Diocito Palagtiw, Ernie Sablan, Richard Pancho, Rodrigo Estrabela,
Danny Kadusale and Allyrobyl Olpus.
Only those whose names are in bold letters appealed the LA's October 9,
2002 decision before the NLRC; id. at 152.

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 13
 8 (Popup - Popup)
8. Id. at 135. The following are the respective hiring dates and duties of the named
respondents:
Name Duties Hiring Date
Allyrobyl P Olpus Hooker February 24, 1988
Felipe B. Balansag Driver March 8, 1988
Richard E. Pancho Loader Operator March 24, 1989
Joventino C. Broce Gantry Hooker April 3, 1989
Romeo B. Balansag Driver May 1, 1989
Ferdinand G. Acibo Utility February 19, 1990
Danny S. Kadusale Crane Operator September 11, 1991
Dionisio Bendijo, Jr. Welder September 16, 1991
Eddie Z. Baldoza Welder October 16, 1991
Andy C. Banjao Welder October 16, 1991
Diocito H. Palagtiw Welder October 21, 1991
Diomedes F. Alicos Prod. Raw Maintenance February 28, 1992
Rodrigo A. Estrabela Utility June 4, 1992
Miguel F. Alicos Utility January 28, 1993
Bienvenido M. Rodriguez Lime Attendant August 25, 1993
Manuel T. Bangot Driver February 1, 1994
Rodger L. Ramirez Utility August 1, 1994
Rogelio M. Amahit Prod. Raw Maintenance August 15, 1994
Ernie D. Sabla-on Welder February 8, 1996
Rene V. Abellar Lime Tender February 10, 1996
Larry C. Amosco Evaporator Helper March 26, 1996
Enrico A. Literal Prod. Raw Maintenance March 26, 1996
Roberto S. Aguilar Lime Attendant April 8, 1996

9 (Popup - Popup)
9. Id. at 88-129.

10 (Popup - Popup)
10. Supra note 6.

11 (Popup - Popup)
11. Supra note 4.

12 (Popup - Popup)

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 14
 12. Supra note 5.

13 (Popup - Popup)
13. Rollo, pp. 178-197.

14 (Popup - Popup)
14. Supra note 2.

15 (Popup - Popup)
15. Rollo, pp. 60-79.

16 (Popup - Popup)
16. Supra note 3.

17 (Popup - Popup)
17. The matter of the respondents' non-entitlement to the CBA benefits, as declared by
the CA, was not raised before this Court in the present proceeding either by the
petitioners or the respondents.

18 (Popup - Popup)
18. Rollo, pp. 246-249.

19 (Popup - Popup)
19. Article 280 of the Labor Code reads in full:
Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of
the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has
been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been
fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the
work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the
Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 15
 preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one
year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a
regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his
employment shall continue while such activity exists.

20 (Popup - Popup)
20. De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 257 Phil. 626, 632 (1989). See
also Hda. Fatima v. Nat'l. Fed. of Sugarcane Workers-Food and Gen. Trade, 444
Phil. 587, 596 (2003); Abasolo v. National Labor Relations Commission, 400 Phil.
86, 103 (2000); and Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Starke, Inc. v. Cuenca, 496 Phil.
198, 209 (2005).

21 (Popup - Popup)
21. LABOR CODE, Article 280.

22 (Popup - Popup)
22. See Violeta v. NLRC, 345 Phil. 762, 771 (1997).

23 (Popup - Popup)
23. See Tomas Lao Construction v. NLRC, 344 Phil. 268, 279 (1997).

24 (Popup - Popup)
24. See Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, 348 Phil. 580, 600-601 (1998).

25 (Popup - Popup)
25. Ibid.

26 (Popup - Popup)
26. See Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Starke, Inc. v. Cuenca, supra note 20, at 209; and
Hda. Fatima v. Nat'l Fed. of Sugarcane Workers-Food and Gen. Trade, supra note
20, at 596.

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 16
 27 (Popup - Popup)
27. See Abasolo v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 20, at 103-104.

28 (Popup - Popup)
28. Id.

29 (Popup - Popup)
29. 260 Phil. 747 (1990).

30 (Popup - Popup)
30. Id. at 763.

31 (Popup - Popup)
31. See St. Theresa's School of Novaliches Foundation v. NLRC, 351 Phil. 1038, 1043
(1998); Pure Foods Corp. v. NLRC, 347 Phil. 434, 443 (1997); and Philips
Semiconductors (Phils.), Inc. v. Fadriquela, G.R. No. 141717, April 14, 2004, 427
SCRA 408, 421-422.

32 (Popup - Popup)
32. Cielo v. NLRC, 271 Phil. 433, 442 (1991).

33 (Popup - Popup)
33. Abasolo, et al. v. NLRC, 400 Phil. 86, 103 (2000).

34 (Popup - Popup)
34. Id. at 104.

35 (Popup - Popup)
35. 278 Phil. 345 (1991).

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 17
 36 (Popup - Popup)
36. Supra note 20.

37 (Popup - Popup)
37. Supra note 20.

38 (Popup - Popup)
38. Id.

39 (Popup - Popup)
39. Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation, G.R. No. 183329, August 27, 2009,
597 SCRA 334, 342.

40 (Popup - Popup)
40. Id. at 342-343.

41 (Popup - Popup)
41. Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna, G.R. No. 172086, December 3,
2012, 686 SCRA 676, 683-684.

42 (Popup - Popup)
42. Rollo, p. 157.

43 (Popup - Popup)
43. Ibid.

44 (Popup - Popup)
44. Id. at 55.

45 (Popup - Popup)
Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 18
 45. Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 102130, July 26, 1994, 234
SCRA 517.

Copyright 1994-2016 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2016 Third Release 19